PBSA 811 PEC – Individual Assignment

MANUSCRIPT REVIEW FORM

Student: 25807609 Name: Ngwanasegolo Walter Solomon MakgaiLecturer’ s name: Professor Pieter BuysModule name: Financial Reporting PBSA811Title of manuscript: Independent Reviews: Perceptions of Chartered Accountants (South Africa)
Journal: Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research Vol. 12: 2011 (25-36) | |

1. Are the Title and Abstract Appropriate? Explain
On the one hand, the paper title does not seem to fully capture the essence of the paper. The meaning is ambiguous in that, it might either mean the perceptions of chartered accountants study is conducted by an independent review, or, it might suggest that the study is about how Chartered accountants perceive independent reviews. On the other hand, the authors (Odendaal and De Jager, 2011) have rightly specified that the study applies to Chattered Accountants in South Africa. The research findings are based on this geographical location. But while the title could have been more comprehensive, the abstract seems sufficient in that it summarises the study objective as to “determine the perceptions of Chartered Accountants (South Africa) regarding independent reviews” and goes on to report the process of data collection (questionnaire) as well as the summarised findings of the study. Recommendations are also outlined in the abstract. The abstract therefore provides a concise summary of what the reader should expect in the entire study.

2. Rate the paper in each of the following areas. Please provide reasons
In this section, this assignment provides rating of Odendaal and De Jager’s paper (2011) using the Likert scale in the following form:
1. Excellent
2. Good
4. Poor
5. Very poor
Each of these ratings will then be explained accordingly.
2.1. Actuality: Excellent.
Odendaal and De Jager’s study (2011) is based on real life case. The paper highlights that auditing of annual financial statements in Annual General Meetings (AGMs) is a statutory requirement, which can either be satisfied through appointed qualified auditors or independent reviews. The paper assesses how Chattered accountants perceive independent reviews.

2.2. Technical content: Excellent
The authors demonstrate knowledge of the accounting subject, inclusive of the regulations which govern the accounting practice. The paper is also written within academic guidelines, it is well-argued and substantiated with findings.
2.3. Originality: Good
The study reveals originality, especially considering that limited consideration has been given to independent accounting reviews. The authors interviewed a total of 402 accounting practitioners, a sample which legitimises the study conclusions.
2.4. Significance: Good
The study is important in that it presents findings on how Chattered Accountants perceive independent reviews. The findings conclude that independent reviews are perceived as in high demand, although slightly less authoritative than the regular auditing option. The significance of these perceptions is that they shape the use of independent reviews by firms.

2.5. Clarity / Organisation: Good
The paper is clear on what it sets out to do, which is to assess how chattered accountants in South Africa perceive independent reviews. This objective is well addressed in subsequent arguments, and substantiated with primary data. The conclusions make a case for use of independent reviews as less burdensome, less rigorous and less expensive. The downside of independent review according to the paper is that it is less assuring.

2.6. Mechanics / Grammar: Excellent.
The authors have articulated their arguments, findings and conclusions in good grammar.

3. General Comments
3.1 Discuss the contribution made by the manuscript.
Odendaal and De Jager’s paper makes a useful contribution to the accounting discipline, considering that independent reviews occupy a critical space in accounting, and provides a reasonable alternative to conventional auditing. It adds to the South African Institute of Tax professionals report (2013), which promotes independent review in favour of entrepreneurship. Emerging enterprises are likely to find independent reviews useful in terms of lower costs and minimised bureaucratic process. The paper adds to on-going debates about effective yet context based accounting systems.
(a). Does it constitute a balanced, useful, and/or critical review of the current situation?
The study provides a critical review of accounting systems, except that the findings represent perceptions of Chartered Accountants only. This potentially biases the study towards Chattered Accountants who have vested interests in conventional auditing. It might have been useful to account for the opposing view, which holds that independent reviews are actually more costly than auditing (See Ashley Vandiar, 2011)
(b). Does it present a new, rational perspective on how to approach unresolved problems?
The study does present a rational argument on making efforts on balancing between conventional auditing and independent reviews.
(c). Does it present new theory?
The paper does not provide new theory, it is rather more focused on practice than theory.

3.2. Comments on the technical content of the manuscript.
The authors have sourced their desktop information from 35 sources, which is a commendable threshold. Additionally, most of the cited sources are recent, and therefore provide the latest information in the field. Thus said, of the 35 sources listed in the Bibliography, 28 of them are either email correspondences or online newsletters. Peer reviewed Journals are alarmingly few. The excessive use of online non-peer reviewed material potentially lowers the quality of the study.

(a) Are all references in the text listed in the list of references and listed references referred to in the text?
Yes, all references in the text are listed in the list of References
(b) Are the tables and figures legible and self-explanatory?
There are figures, but the nine tables in the paper are well labelled and clear on the information they seek to present.
(c) Are the tables and figures a correct and appropriate representation of the text?
Yes, the tables provide appropriate representation of the text
(d) Are the tables and figures necessary?
Yes, the tables are necessary in presenting the findings of the study
(e) Are the tables and figures adequate?
Yes, the 9 tables are adequate
(f) Are equations correct, well-presented, well-explained and necessary?
This particular paper does not include equations in its arguments.
3.3 Comments on the organisational and writing style of the manuscript.
(a) Is the manuscript grammatically sound and readable?
Yes, the paper is structured in a readable manner, although an additional information on Global and South African Reviews could have been broken down further and more information could have been presented.
3.4. Comment on the evaluation methodology used.
The methodology used to substantiate the conclusions of the study is reasonably satisfactory from the point of view of the sample size. It is however not satisfactory in the fact that it does not seem to be representative of various stakeholders whose perspectives on independent reviews are equally as important as Accountants Chattered.
4. Suggestions for Improvement to the Paper /Critique of the Paper
Overall, the paper makes an important contribution to the accounting field. The abstract provides a representative synopsis of the rest of the study. The paper is practical, and addresses real life accounting situation. The authors have made a convincing argument in favour of independent accounting reviews, not as a substitute for conventional auditing but as supplementary. This they have done through review of the latest literature, as well as primary data collection among South African Chattered Accountants
Some areas, however, could be improved. First, the title is ambiguous and could be refined. Second, the section of the paper which reviews existing literature is limited. This should not be done as a formality, rather as an effort to determine how over researched or under researched the study objective is. It is also important in assessing the existing gaps. These gaps should then inform the objectives of the primary data collection. The paper appears to have moved quickly to the primary data collection without sufficient examination of existing literature. Third, the study is excessively reliant on internet sources and less on peer reviewed Journals or books. Fourth, the authors interviewed only Chattered Accountants, and by so doing they bias the study towards an interest group.

LIST OF REFERENCES
South African Institute of Tax Professionals (2013). Audit vs. Independent Review. [Onine]. Available from http://www.thesait.org.za/news/116111/Audit-vs.-Independent-Review.htm [Accessed: 07th March 2015].
Odendaal EM.and De Jager, H. (2010) Audit vs. independent review. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research 10: 2010 (33-43)
Ashley Vandiar, T. (2011) Independent reviews not necessarily simpler, or cheaper, than audits [Online] Available from http://www.auditpartners.co.za/a/9823/independent-reviews-vs-audits. Accessed: 05th March 2015].
South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) (2011). Companies Act 71 of 2008 [Online] Available from https://www.saica.co.za/tabid/1899/itemid/2119/language/en-US/Summary-of-regulations-relating-to-audit-and-revi.aspx. [Accessed 6th March 2015]